Research on comprehensive analysis of patient comfort and complication rate using haemodialysis indwelling needles in AVF puncture in haemodialysis treatment.

IF 1.8 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL European Journal of Translational Myology Pub Date : 2024-04-30 DOI:10.4081/ejtm.2024.12422
Guihong Jin, Jianmin Gu, Yan Zhang, Shidan Ren
{"title":"Research on comprehensive analysis of patient comfort and complication rate using haemodialysis indwelling needles in AVF puncture in haemodialysis treatment.","authors":"Guihong Jin, Jianmin Gu, Yan Zhang, Shidan Ren","doi":"10.4081/ejtm.2024.12422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Traditional needles for haemodialysis access can cause complications and discomfort. Indwelling needles may have advantages, but their efficacy needs to be investigated. Our study sought to compare the safety and efficacy of indwelling needles to traditional needles for haemodialysis access. A single-center retrospective study at the Pingyang County Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine included 70 haemodialysis patients. The intervention group used indwelling needles, whereas the control group used traditional needles. The rate of complications, limb mobility, blood chemistry, puncture success rates, operation times, haemostasis times, pain and comfort scores, and internal fistula failure rates were all compared. Overall, complication rates were slightly higher in the control group, but not statistically significant. Both groups improved their limb mobility and blood chemistry, but there were no significant differences. The intervention group had significantly higher puncture success rates (88.4% vs. 80.0%), shorter operation times (65.4 vs. 72.3 seconds), and faster haemostasis times (23.7 vs. 28.2 seconds) than the control group. Patients in the intervention group experienced less pain (3.7 vs. 4.2) and more comfort (8.1 vs. 7.5). The intervention group had slightly lower internal fistula failure rates (2.9% vs. 5.7%), but the difference was not statistically significant. Indwelling needles appear to improve puncture efficiency and patient comfort during hemodialysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":46459,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Translational Myology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11264225/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Translational Myology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/ejtm.2024.12422","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Traditional needles for haemodialysis access can cause complications and discomfort. Indwelling needles may have advantages, but their efficacy needs to be investigated. Our study sought to compare the safety and efficacy of indwelling needles to traditional needles for haemodialysis access. A single-center retrospective study at the Pingyang County Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine included 70 haemodialysis patients. The intervention group used indwelling needles, whereas the control group used traditional needles. The rate of complications, limb mobility, blood chemistry, puncture success rates, operation times, haemostasis times, pain and comfort scores, and internal fistula failure rates were all compared. Overall, complication rates were slightly higher in the control group, but not statistically significant. Both groups improved their limb mobility and blood chemistry, but there were no significant differences. The intervention group had significantly higher puncture success rates (88.4% vs. 80.0%), shorter operation times (65.4 vs. 72.3 seconds), and faster haemostasis times (23.7 vs. 28.2 seconds) than the control group. Patients in the intervention group experienced less pain (3.7 vs. 4.2) and more comfort (8.1 vs. 7.5). The intervention group had slightly lower internal fistula failure rates (2.9% vs. 5.7%), but the difference was not statistically significant. Indwelling needles appear to improve puncture efficiency and patient comfort during hemodialysis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于在血液透析治疗中使用血液透析留置针进行动静脉瘘穿刺的患者舒适度和并发症发生率的综合分析研究。
用于血液透析通路的传统针头会引起并发症和不适。留置针可能有其优势,但其疗效有待研究。我们的研究旨在比较留置针与传统血液透析通路针的安全性和有效性。平阳县中医院开展了一项单中心回顾性研究,纳入了 70 名血液透析患者。干预组使用留置针,对照组使用传统针。比较了并发症发生率、肢体活动度、血液生化指标、穿刺成功率、手术时间、止血时间、疼痛和舒适度评分以及内瘘失败率。总体而言,对照组的并发症发生率略高,但无统计学意义。两组患者的肢体活动度和血液生化指标均有所改善,但无明显差异。干预组的穿刺成功率(88.4% 对 80.0%)、手术时间(65.4 秒 对 72.3 秒)和止血时间(23.7 秒 对 28.2 秒)均明显高于对照组。干预组患者的疼痛感更轻(3.7 对 4.2),舒适度更高(8.1 对 7.5)。干预组的内瘘失败率略低(2.9% 对 5.7%),但差异无统计学意义。留置针似乎提高了血液透析过程中的穿刺效率和患者舒适度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Translational Myology
European Journal of Translational Myology MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
27.30%
发文量
74
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Comparing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Graft in Treatment of Non-ST-segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Study. Low level laser therapy and rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. Efficacy of electrical stimulation of the zygomaticus muscle in complete facial paralysis: evidence from facial grading and automated image analysis. Deceleration of denervated facial muscle atrophy through functional electrical stimulation: a sonographic quantification in patients with facial nerve paralysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1